Explaining Cued Speech - from an expert.

[loml]

loml

deafskeptic -Why do you insist on comparing Cued Speech and ASL? What is the point?

If you wanted to communicate in English, what could/would you use? I am not referring to pen, paper and key board.

My point is that deaf communicate best via sign. My point should have been very clear to you.

Why I'd use speech in spoken English. I thought you said cued speech had nothing to do with speech development? You don't need cued speech to speak, BTW.

deafskeptic - You didn't answer the question. I asked you why do you insist on comparing Cued Speech to ASL? What is the point? Perhaps you didn't understand the question.

Not all deaf communicate with sign. Stop making such blanket statements.

 

[deafskeptic]

loml




deafskeptic - You didn't answer the question. I asked you why do you insist on comparing Cued Speech to ASL? What is the point? Perhaps you didn't understand the question.
My answer was to RD in my orginal post and if you don't like my answer, deal with it.
Not all deaf communicate with sign. Stop making such blanket statements.

Yes, not all deaf communicate with sign. However, most profoundly prelingually deaf find sign easier to use. Most reject cued speech because it doesn't fit their communication needs. I should think it'd be clear to you by now.

 

[loml]

Yes, not all deaf communicate with sign. However, most profoundly prelingually deaf find sign easier to use. Most reject cued speech because it doesn't fit their communication needs. I should think it'd be clear to you by now.

Deafskeptic - This was my question: I asked you why do you insist on comparing Cued Speech to ASL? What is the point?

This is your answer: most profoundly prelingually/b] deaf find sign easier to use. Most reject cued speech because it doesn't fit their communication needs

So, you keep comparing CS and ASL becuse you believe most profoundly prelingually deaf find sign easier. Hmmm... okay then.

CS is about literacy in English, first and foremost. This is not about communicating with ASL.

 

[jillio]

Originally Posted by deafskeptic



deafskeptic -Why do you insist on comparing Cued Speech and ASL? What is the point?

If you wanted to communicate in English, what could/would you use? I am not referring to pen, paper and key board.

You, loml, are the one that keeps comparing CS to ASL in regards to the issue of langauge acquisition. The rest of us are merely replying to your comparisons. And why would one not use the written form of English as communication. Unlike CS, written English is a centuries old, proven system for making English visable. Again, you are bringing your point right backtothe issue we keep arguing against...spoken English. Your oralist roots are showing.

 

[jillio]

shel90- Some hearing families of deaf children cannot provide an accurate fluent model for the child to learn, for many reasons. You wish to continue to pressure hearing families into a situation where optimum learning may not result. Why do you do that?

First statement is entirely incorrect. The richest linguistic environment is quite often NOT the home,and this applies to both hearing and deaf children. My statement is even more true today than it was 10 years ago, or quite frankly at any other point in history. For the deaf child, the home is quite often the most impoverished linguistic environment because it is an oral only environment. Even with the addition of CS, you are still referringto an oral environment. A bilingual home is by far the richest environment, and a bilingual preschool and educational setting increases the level of enrichment. Your statement is not based on fact, but on another bit of propaganda designed to hook hearing parents. Shel is promoting the environment that will lead to optimal learning. It is you that continues to push a system that further restricts.

Providing a deaf child the opportunity aquire their familial language through Cued Speech, and the family can/does provide a deaf individual for ASL, and the child/family aquires ASL, isn't that the best of both worlds?

CS is redundant if the child is acquiring their L1 langauge through the use of CS. L2 can be learned visually through print. One does not acquire 2 L1 languages. One acquires the L1 language and learns the L2 language. Numerous studies over time have supported the fact that a deaf child in an oral environment does not acquire an L1 language to the degree that they achieve native fluency. That is why, even the majority of the oral successes still struggle with native fluency in English.

 

[jillio]

loml




deafskeptic - You didn't answer the question. I asked you why do you insist on comparing Cued Speech to ASL? What is the point? Perhaps you didn't understand the question.

Not all deaf communicate with sign. Stop making such blanket statements.

That is absolutely hysterical coming from you! Deafskeptic understood the question. You just didn't get the answer you wanted. Two very different situations.

 

[jillio]

Deafskeptic - This was my question: I asked you why do you insist on comparing Cued Speech to ASL? What is the point?

This is your answer: most profoundly prelingually/b] deaf find sign easier to use. Most reject cued speech because it doesn't fit their communication needs

So, you keep comparing CS and ASL becuse you believe most profoundly prelingually deaf find sign easier. Hmmm... okay then.

CS is about literacy in English, first and foremost. This is not about communicating with ASL.

There you go again, loml. Contradicting yoursel. In an immediately previous post to shel, you refer to CS as a way to acquire spoken English as the familial language. Now you say it is all about literacy. If one cannot communicate, one cannot become literate. One must have langauge before one can become literate in langauge. If you want to promote CS as a tool for literacy, thenstick to that. If you want to promote it as a communication method, then stick to that. You continually argue out of both sides of your mouth, and as a consequence, have completely destroyed your credibility.

 

[jillio]

My point is that deaf communicate best via sign. My point should have been very clear to you.

Why I'd use speech in spoken English. I thought you said cued speech had nothing to do with speech development? You don't need cued speech to speak, BTW.

Good catch on the contradiciton. It would appear that loml expects the deaf posters on this board who do not use CS to be so illiterate as to not be capable of seeing the contradiciton and fallacy in his posts. If there are any problems with comprehension going on in this thread, it is loml's difficulty in comprehending very straight forward and well formed statements. Could this perhaps be an example of inadequate L1 language acquistion as the direct result of an oral only environment?

 

[flip]

Good catch on the contradiciton. It would appear that loml expects the deaf posters on this board who do not use CS to be so illiterate as to not be capable of seeing the contradiciton and fallacy in his posts. If there are any problems with comprehension going on in this thread, it is loml's difficulty in comprehending very straight forward and well formed statements. Could this perhaps be an example of inadequate L1 language acquistion as the direct result of an oral only environment?

Good points, can it also be that that loml don't dare to offend the millions of people that have connections to ASL by just say straight forward that "ASL as a bad thing, or at its best, unnecessary"?

 

[flip]

flip- You are displaying your lack of understanding regarding cueing. Once again cueing is NOT about ASL, nor is it conceptual. Conceptualization is not the only way that deaf/hoh children to aquire language.

Loml, I am sorry if I you was offended by the joke, but no need go this low with throwing around inane accusations for claims never made. Just laugh it off.

 

[jillio]

Good points, can it also be that that loml don't dare to offend the millions of people that have connections to ASL by just say straight forward that "ASL as a bad thing, or at its best, unnecessary"?

I think he is trying very hard to hold onto some degree of acceptance in the deaf community so that he can continue to promote CS and the NCSA.

 

[jillio]

Loml, I am sorry if I you was offended by the joke, but no need go this low with throwing around inane accusations for claims never made. Just laugh it off.

The fact that he claims that conceptualization is not neccessary to language acquisition is proof positive of his lack of understanding. Without an understanding of concept, any language is nothing more than meaningless symbols.

 

[shel90]

You are certianly entitled to your opinion. IMO if you choose to not, or are unable to communicate with someone, you have set yourself apart and cut off communication with them which as I understand it, is a form of isolation. I don't mean it in a negative way. It's just how I see it. At the end of the day, if you are truly happy, then that's what matters most.

I can communicate with hearing people but I find myself feeling much more isolated in a group of hearing people chattering away using spoken language than I am with a group of people using ASL. As long as I am not isolating myself from another human being, I am not cut-off nor I feel that is a form of isolation.

The way you put it gave me the impression that ASL users are not simply good enough and that deaf people must interact with non-signers. Some simply dont want to and I dont see anything wrong with that if it makes them happy.

 

[shel90]

loml, u keep talking about language and literacy....deaf children can acquire language and literacy through ASL and that is why ASL has been brought up. ASL is not just for communication use only.

My students are evident of acquiring literacy through ASL. They can read and write and they have never used CS.

 

[loml]

Good points, can it also be that that loml don't dare to offend the millions of people that have connections to ASL by just say straight forward that "ASL as a bad thing, or at its best, unnecessary"?

flip - I am not in the habit of lieing. You on the other hand, seem to think that it is appropriate to post statements that are lies or at a minimum misguided.

Really sad.

 

[jillio]

I can communicate with hearing people but I find myself feeling much more isolated in a group of hearing people chattering away using spoken language than I am with a group of people using ASL. As long as I am not isolating myself from another human being, I am not cut-off nor I feel that is a form of isolation.

The way you put it gave me the impression that ASL users are not simply good enough and that deaf people must interact with non-signers. Some simply dont want to and I dont see anything wrong with that if it makes them happy.

Exactly, shel. Isolation is not being able to communicate fully with the hearing community, and never having been given the skills to communicate with the deaf community.

 

[jillio]

flip - I am not in the habit of lieing. You on the other hand, seem to think that it is appropriate to post statements that are lies or at a minimum misguided.

Really sad.

Given the number of innacurate statements made by you, and the misleading nature of your constant contradiction, that is truly a case of the pot attempting to call the kettle black!

 

[loml]

Broken record........

loml, u keep talking about language and literacy....deaf children can acquire language and literacy through ASL and that is why ASL has been brought up. ASL is not just for communication use only.

My students are evident of acquiring literacy through ASL. They can read and write and they have never used CS.

shel90 - That is great if you are having success with ASL and literacy. Why do you insist on making the comparison.

There are so many variables to successful deaf education. I cue for English and if you were to "step outside the box", then perhaps you aquire the understanding and experience of learning Cued Speech. To insist that deaf/hoh children from hearing families learn English is imo oppression of deaf/hoh children from hearing families.

Why make aquiring/learning English such an arduous task?

 

[shel90]

shel90 - That is great if you are having success with ASL and literacy. Why do you insist on making the comparison.

There are so many variables to successful deaf education. I cue for English and if you were to "step outside the box", then perhaps you aquire the understanding and experience of learning Cued Speech. To insist that deaf/hoh children from hearing families learn English is imo oppression of deaf/hoh children from hearing families.

Why make aquiring/learning English such an arduous task?[/QUOTE]

If a deaf child is not able to acquire a L1 language through CS, then learning English will be an arduous task.

Has CS been proven to work for all deaf children? Those two coworkers who have used CS, one professionaly and the other personally, even said that it benefits some. What happens to the child if CS didnt work for him/her? Developing literacy becomes extremely difficult for them.

 

[jillio]

shel90 - That is great if you are having success with ASL and literacy. Why do you insist on making the comparison.

There are so many variables to successful deaf education. I cue for English and if you were to "step outside the box", then perhaps you aquire the understanding and experience of learning Cued Speech. To insist that deaf/hoh children from hearing families learn English is imo oppression of deaf/hoh children from hearing families.

Why make aquiring/learning English such an arduous task?

Once again, you are the one that continues to make the comparison, and all else is in response to yor comaprisons. How is insisting that a child learn English oppression. Insisting that a child not be placed in a situation where they can acquire L1 language in order to facillitate the learning of English is opressive. Your statement makes no sense.

Yes, loml, why make it such an ardous task? It has been supported historically and empirically that it is easier for a deaf child to learn English when they have acquired ASL as their L1 language. If anyone is making the learning of English an ardous task for the deaf child, it is the oralists, and that would include the visual oralists.